Eaglefish

The Iraqi govt would be doing even less of it's job if the US left!

Goldstone69

No those in Basra with an agenda (power/influence) and an AK47 don't support the Iraqi Government the people just want stability and peace as the vast majority of people always do , the two groups should not be confused.
Support for the Militias has plummeted according to a recent poll but what are the silent majority meant to do against armed militias ?

__________________
"One must never forget that monetary union, which the two of us were the first to propose more than a decade ago is ultimately a political project. It aims to give a new impulse to the historic movement towards union of the European states. Monetary union is a federative project that needs to be accompanied and followed by other steps." — Giscard d'Estaing and Helmut Schmidt

Eaglefish

The argument is easy enough to understand, it just fails on the basis of it being a "set up" argument with contarry points assumed to be true - by you - which in fact are fallacious. The Iraqi people don't have to support the govt for it to succeed, it can succeed if the power factions agree on a shared govt., and those factions have a better chance of sharing power if the US keeps them from fighting each other.

Eaglefish

Your understanding of what goes on in Iraq seems to be based on the misunderstanding that the "govt" is much of an issue to the sectarians. It's not. Like Afghanistan the govt has limited power in Iraq, even with it's Army and Police force. Saddam used 3 or 4 times the manpower to control Iraq and it was well paid and loyal to him.

The so called "Iraqi forces" today are not loyal to the govt, they are loyal to their local sheiks. What causes Iraq to run today, in it's fashion, is due to the work of local powers to handle their own security, and economy, and justice. The US is trying to get the govt to be a govt that can stand on it's own feet due to loyalty of factions who share power, share wealth distribution, and share the desire for a strong united Iraq, as opposed to one run by war lords, ala Afghanistan.

I agree with your presumption that the US won't pull it off.

DamnYankee

I think the time for training the Iraqis to defend themselves, ought to be over by now. A slow withdrawal is in order. Our troops have done their job, and a wonderful job at that, but it is time to start coming home.

calmObserver

don't agree, in long run all governments must have support of the people.

so why haven't they? i think one point some are missing is u.s. has over all say in iraqi legislation so that current oil bill is opposed by all three groups. this most certainly has happened in other areas also ~ not just oil.

Eaglefish

Then you don't follow the Middle East or Africa much.


I don't think the US has much say in the Iraqi Parliament, which is why not much gets done. Where it a puppet govt. there would have been legislation favoring the US, and it ain't happened.

Alomar

I agree with the OP. Though I'll expand my criticism, etc;

There is no 'Iraq'. It's several peoples once again asserting their different identities by both peaceful and violent means. Even the Turks know this and have already moved south to Kurdistan(again!) and will no doubt add to the death toll in what is merely another battle arena.

That 'country' may have been run by a savage tyrant; to invade that 'country' and remove its ruler in expectation that some kind of peaceful secular democracry would emerge was and remains a boy's dream. The only reason there wasn't all this 'violence' in 'Iraq' pre-2003 is because Saddam refused to tolerate it(nor his American friends who backed him in suppressing the Kurds in the 80s and Shiites in 1991).

The ridiculous talk nowadays that Western occupation forces must remain in 'Iraq' is profoundly hypocritical; the invasion and suppression of political democratisation opportunities(eg. Paul Bremer cancelled elections after occuring) from 2003-04 has produced a very predictable secretarian conflict. It is NOT a civil war; this was an artificial nation in the first place created by British imperialists trying to cement British perimiters of defence in the Middle-East. It is an international battle arena.

Once/when the forces withdraw the 'civil war' will boom and end after like a month with 2 likely results;

1. A new dictator even worse than Saddam will emerge and solidify the country via a new wave of domestic repression and possibly attack neighbours.

2. 'Iraq' will splinter(as I think it should) with the Shiitie, Sunni and Kurds establishing their own states but surrounded by hostile nations(eg. Turkey will probablby raid the border on an annual basis).


The same goes for Afghanistan(not to detract since it's much the same situation IMO);

Many lives lost in that battle arena were wasted. In vain hope of constructing a client state in a land that is nothing more than pockets of princedoms that fight one another.

The Russians were driven out in 1989 and so will the 'coalition' in a few years.

These are not people who have the same political, religous and cultural views as Western democrats, secularists and humanists. To expect all the warlors to resign, their militas to hand over their weapons, and all the Mullahs to stop preaching sedition is plain stupid. A project propogated and administed(failingly) by weak and miserable men.

__________________

"It isn't what you do, it's what you are" definition of a writer, C. Hitchens, Conversations with History interview, April 25th 2002

Hotduck

No


The USA needs to stay because the government of Iraq is not strong enough to defend itself yet. They are beating back AQI and radicals Shiites and they need us their to help them do this that. The problem with your argument is that you assume that the Iraqi people do not need are help to beat back the insurgency and other radicals the fact is they do.

Their getting better at it but they still need are help to train Iraqi troops and most of all provide security.

__________________
Tim-"I assume you have a long list of benevolent nations and peoples who circle the globe, bestowing gifts on the human race from the purest of motives - in contrast with those terrible Americans, whose motives and behavior are always suspect"? :rolleyes

Shiva_TD

The arguments for staying all seem to boil down to allegations that the Iraqi People are not willing to submit to the US installed government in Iraq and that the fundamental problem preventing a US withdrawal is that the Iraqi government does not have the military might to force the Iraqi People into compliance.

Well, there is a word for governance based upon military force and it is called tyranny so basically those that argue for the US to stay in Iraq are calling for the imposition of a tyrannical government that imposed its will by military force. This is fundamentally no better than having Saddam in power. That is how he ruled, remember? If you disagree with Saddam he had you shot and now there are those here on this board basically advocating the same thing. "Let's stay in Iraq until the Iraqi government has the military power to force the Iraqi People to comply with it."

You know what I say, "Fuck this shit!" I oppose tyranny and I certainly don't want my country supporting it in Iraq or anywhere else.

Either the Iraqi People need to voluntarily support their government or they need to create one that they will support. If a government has to be forced upon them by the military then it is the wrong government, period!